Day 2 of Capstone Conference

Comment thread open. Here is Sandra’s talk:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Day 2 of Capstone Conference

  1. setfree says:

    Saw the Bible vs. Joseph Smith film this morning. Good stuff. I would have been so disappointed if the man had dropped Mormonism and/or embraced Christianity at the end of the film. You know?

  2. I assume you mean it was good that the video ended without a sudden decision made by the man, but with his commitment to study the things out.

  3. Ken says:

    I just hope that as the man in the film is “studying things out”, that the same commitment of time and resources and effort that was made to show him all the evidences to disprove what he believed, will also be committed toward guiding him to the Lord Jesus Christ. And that he is not just left to fend for himself.
    After all, we need to be making disciples, not just getting a person to make a decision.
    I think that if he would have made a decision at the end of the film to accept our Lord Jesus Christ, it could have diminished the films powerful message. Perhaps even leaving one to feel it was a complete act.
    I felt that mans pain as he was having everything he believed in destroyed right before his eyes.
    I could say a lot about it, but for those of you who have not had to go through it, its really tough, to say the least.
    I enjoyed the entire conference very much and I hope that I made some new permanent friends as well.
    Thanks to all those who were involved in bringing it together.
    God Bless you all,

  4. setfree says:

    “I think that if he would have made a decision at the end of the film to accept our Lord Jesus Christ, it could have diminished the films powerful message. Perhaps even leaving one to feel it was a complete act.”


    I would imagine that because the man agreed to put himself out there… that is, on this video, that he will take seriously the challenge to study the matter out. I loved the ending line… and I believe that too.

  5. setfree says:

    Did any of our LDS readers watch Sandra’s talk? Wanna talk about it?

  6. Olsen Jim says:


    You said regarding the film “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon”- “good stuff.”

    In what sense?

    That film is so blatantly misleading and biased, it can hardly be considered a serious treatment of the topic. It is pure propaganda.

    But I think this film has become the bread and butter for otherwise uninformed critics- it requires nothing to watch it on youtube. And nothing is almost what a person gets after watching it.

  7. Jim says:

    Hello, Setfree said “Good stuff” regarding The Bible vs. Joseph Smith. Quote: “Saw the Bible vs. Joseph Smith film this morning. Good stuff.”

    Other than that, I found The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon to be very interesting and informative. A response to the fil’s critics may be seen here:

  8. setfree says:

    Jim, did you watch the film? either of them?

  9. Jim says:

    Hi Setfree,
    I watched The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon and ordered The Bible vs. Joseph Smith and am looking forqward to seeing it.

  10. setfree says:

    Good. Let’s talk about it again after you’ve seen it then? Did you watch Sandra Tanner’s talk?
    P.S. I’d also recommend Lifting the Veil of Polygamy.

  11. Jim says:

    I saw Lifting the Veil of Polygamy online and I watched most of Sandra Tanner’s talk. Just amazing. I’ve read Grant Palmer’s book too, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.

  12. setfree says:

    Ok. so is it all, according to you, “blatantly misleading and biased… pure propaganda”? or just the most recent film? are you going to share specifically what you find offensive, or is it just all of it in general?

  13. setfree says:

    btw, thanks to the link

    did you read it? was there supposed to be in it which said something negative about the Bible vs Book of Mormon film?

    “Conclusion: Mr. Gardner (the Mormon who wrote the criticism of “The Bible vs The Book of Mormon”) expends considerable energy and verbiage on convoluted arguments in order to combat what are very simple and straightforward challenges to the Book of Mormon, yet does not directly address any of them. While accusing the producers of being illusionists, he himself presents many illusions with his own tactics of misdirection.

    The message of the film is clear: the Bible’s geography is clearly established. Old World archaeology and external history corroborate many places, events, and people described in the Bible. The Bible has an extensive textual history which establishes it as an ancient text. These are established facts, not religious suppositions.

    The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, relies entirely on grasping-at-straws speculation and conjecture for any connection to the real world. Vague geographical correlations are cited but not established. Spurious connections are attempted between New World archaeology and the Book of Mormon story, but do not hold up under minimal scrutiny. And as for a textual history, it rests entirely upon the word of a handful of men that lived in the 19th Century.

    Is the Book of Mormon comparable to the Bible? Certainly not in any way that can be established by examining real-world evidence. And shouldn’t faith be based on something that is real? “

  14. grindael says:


    setfree confused you with Jim Olsen….setfree wanted me to let you know (Setfree is out of posts) & will address you tomorrow 🙂

  15. setfree says:

    Haha, new Jim, sorry for the confusion. I didn’t see the absence of “Olsen” on your name, nor even did it cross my mind, as your comment started out the same way as the one he’d already posted!

    Anyhow, welcome to MC! Thanks you (seriously) for the link, and I hope you come back and write some more!

    Jim Olsen, did you watch the films? could you fill us in on the “blatantly misleading and biased… pure propaganda” parts specifically please?

  16. Jim says:

    Hey you’re welcome. Sorry for registering with such a common moniker. I’m trying to re-register a more unique name. has all the articles originally seen at and (now!

Leave a Reply